一个调查和缓解心理评估中机器学习测量偏差(MLMB)的概念框架

IF 15.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Pub Date : 2021-07-30 DOI:10.1177/25152459211061337
L. Tay, S. E. Woo, L. Hickman, Brandon M. Booth, Sidney K. D’Mello
{"title":"一个调查和缓解心理评估中机器学习测量偏差(MLMB)的概念框架","authors":"L. Tay, S. E. Woo, L. Hickman, Brandon M. Booth, Sidney K. D’Mello","doi":"10.1177/25152459211061337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given significant concerns about fairness and bias in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for psychological assessment, we provide a conceptual framework for investigating and mitigating machine-learning measurement bias (MLMB) from a psychometric perspective. MLMB is defined as differential functioning of the trained ML model between subgroups. MLMB manifests empirically when a trained ML model produces different predicted score levels for different subgroups (e.g., race, gender) despite them having the same ground-truth levels for the underlying construct of interest (e.g., personality) and/or when the model yields differential predictive accuracies across the subgroups. Because the development of ML models involves both data and algorithms, both biased data and algorithm-training bias are potential sources of MLMB. Data bias can occur in the form of nonequivalence between subgroups in the ground truth, platform-based construct, behavioral expression, and/or feature computing. Algorithm-training bias can occur when algorithms are developed with nonequivalence in the relation between extracted features and ground truth (i.e., algorithm features are differentially used, weighted, or transformed between subgroups). We explain how these potential sources of bias may manifest during ML model development and share initial ideas for mitigating them, including recognizing that new statistical and algorithmic procedures need to be developed. We also discuss how this framework clarifies MLMB but does not reduce the complexity of the issue.","PeriodicalId":55645,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Conceptual Framework for Investigating and Mitigating Machine-Learning Measurement Bias (MLMB) in Psychological Assessment\",\"authors\":\"L. Tay, S. E. Woo, L. Hickman, Brandon M. Booth, Sidney K. D’Mello\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/25152459211061337\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given significant concerns about fairness and bias in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for psychological assessment, we provide a conceptual framework for investigating and mitigating machine-learning measurement bias (MLMB) from a psychometric perspective. MLMB is defined as differential functioning of the trained ML model between subgroups. MLMB manifests empirically when a trained ML model produces different predicted score levels for different subgroups (e.g., race, gender) despite them having the same ground-truth levels for the underlying construct of interest (e.g., personality) and/or when the model yields differential predictive accuracies across the subgroups. Because the development of ML models involves both data and algorithms, both biased data and algorithm-training bias are potential sources of MLMB. Data bias can occur in the form of nonequivalence between subgroups in the ground truth, platform-based construct, behavioral expression, and/or feature computing. Algorithm-training bias can occur when algorithms are developed with nonequivalence in the relation between extracted features and ground truth (i.e., algorithm features are differentially used, weighted, or transformed between subgroups). We explain how these potential sources of bias may manifest during ML model development and share initial ideas for mitigating them, including recognizing that new statistical and algorithmic procedures need to be developed. We also discuss how this framework clarifies MLMB but does not reduce the complexity of the issue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211061337\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211061337","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

考虑到在使用人工智能(AI)和机器学习(ML)进行心理评估时对公平性和偏见的严重担忧,我们从心理测量的角度提供了一个调查和减轻机器学习测量偏见(MLMB)的概念框架。MLMB被定义为经过训练的ML模型在亚组之间的差分功能。当训练的ML模型为不同的亚组(例如,种族、性别)产生不同的预测得分水平,尽管他们对潜在的兴趣结构(例如,个性)具有相同的基本事实水平时,MLMB在经验上表现出来,和/或当模型在亚组之间产生差异的预测准确性时。由于ML模型的开发涉及数据和算法,因此有偏差的数据和算法训练偏差都是MLMB的潜在来源。在基本事实、基于平台的构建、行为表达和/或特征计算中,数据偏差可能以亚组之间不等价的形式出现。当算法在提取的特征和基本事实之间的关系中具有非等价性时(即,算法特征在子群之间被差异地使用、加权或变换),可能会出现算法训练偏差。我们解释了这些潜在的偏差来源在ML模型开发过程中是如何表现出来的,并分享了缓解这些偏差的初步想法,包括认识到需要开发新的统计和算法程序。我们还讨论了该框架如何澄清MLMB,但不降低问题的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Conceptual Framework for Investigating and Mitigating Machine-Learning Measurement Bias (MLMB) in Psychological Assessment
Given significant concerns about fairness and bias in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for psychological assessment, we provide a conceptual framework for investigating and mitigating machine-learning measurement bias (MLMB) from a psychometric perspective. MLMB is defined as differential functioning of the trained ML model between subgroups. MLMB manifests empirically when a trained ML model produces different predicted score levels for different subgroups (e.g., race, gender) despite them having the same ground-truth levels for the underlying construct of interest (e.g., personality) and/or when the model yields differential predictive accuracies across the subgroups. Because the development of ML models involves both data and algorithms, both biased data and algorithm-training bias are potential sources of MLMB. Data bias can occur in the form of nonequivalence between subgroups in the ground truth, platform-based construct, behavioral expression, and/or feature computing. Algorithm-training bias can occur when algorithms are developed with nonequivalence in the relation between extracted features and ground truth (i.e., algorithm features are differentially used, weighted, or transformed between subgroups). We explain how these potential sources of bias may manifest during ML model development and share initial ideas for mitigating them, including recognizing that new statistical and algorithmic procedures need to be developed. We also discuss how this framework clarifies MLMB but does not reduce the complexity of the issue.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
0.70%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: In 2021, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science will undergo a transition to become an open access journal. This journal focuses on publishing innovative developments in research methods, practices, and conduct within the field of psychological science. It embraces a wide range of areas and topics and encourages the integration of methodological and analytical questions. The aim of AMPPS is to bring the latest methodological advances to researchers from various disciplines, even those who are not methodological experts. Therefore, the journal seeks submissions that are accessible to readers with different research interests and that represent the diverse research trends within the field of psychological science. The types of content that AMPPS welcomes include articles that communicate advancements in methods, practices, and metascience, as well as empirical scientific best practices. Additionally, tutorials, commentaries, and simulation studies on new techniques and research tools are encouraged. The journal also aims to publish papers that bring advances from specialized subfields to a broader audience. Lastly, AMPPS accepts Registered Replication Reports, which focus on replicating important findings from previously published studies. Overall, the transition of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science to an open access journal aims to increase accessibility and promote the dissemination of new developments in research methods and practices within the field of psychological science.
期刊最新文献
Bayesian Analysis of Cross-Sectional Networks: A Tutorial in R and JASP Conducting Research With People in Lower-Socioeconomic-Status Contexts Keeping Meta-Analyses Alive and Well: A Tutorial on Implementing and Using Community-Augmented Meta-Analyses in PsychOpen CAMA A Practical Guide to Conversation Research: How to Study What People Say to Each Other Impossible Hypotheses and Effect-Size Limits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1